In the case of Ivan Eberhart v. United States, 2005, Ivan Eberhart was convicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition under federal law. The conviction was based on evidence obtained during an investigatory stop by police officers who suspected him to be involved in drug trafficking activity. Eberhart challenged his conviction arguing that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to justify their initial stop which led to the discovery of incriminating evidence against him. However, both the district court and appellate court upheld his conviction stating that there were sufficient grounds for suspecting criminal activity due to factors such as high crime rate in area where he was stopped and evasive behavior upon seeing police officers among others.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ivan Eberhart v. United States argued that the majority's decision to uphold Eberhart's conviction was incorrect because it failed to consider important procedural issues related to his trial. The dissent pointed out that the district court had violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 by ruling on Eberhart’s motion for a new trial after the seven-day deadline, which should have resulted in an automatic dismissal of his motion. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of this rule as non-jurisdictional and their assertion that it could be waived if not raised at an appropriate time, arguing instead that such rules are meant to ensure fairness and orderliness in proceedings and should therefore be strictly adhered to regardless of circumstances. Furthermore, they contended that allowing exceptions based on whether or not parties raise objections undermines these objectives by encouraging gamesmanship rather than compliance.